Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-08-21


tent Of making them believe that a re-
iusal TO obey instructions is contempt,
Tor which a jury may DO imprisoned.
and We ali know that Judge Bond, who
generally acts as if he cleared not
God. neither regarded man" has gone
90 fer in the opposite direction as to
swear every jury in advance OF the
trial f all the coupon cases in his conrt
TO obey lis instructions-a crime for
which he deserves to be impeached and
expelled from the bench. But there IS
10 case i'll Virginia or England in
which disregard OF instructions has
ever been mado ground of proceeding
against jury for contempt; and Bond
himself WAS forced to declare, in the
casc Of Strickncr as. wager, motion for
new tIial October IS, 1856, the jury
had scen proper to bring in their YER
dict in dircct conflict WiM the dcciSion
of hc Supreme court Of the Cnitcd
suites. Tho jury are Virginians, and
he'd said other Nirginians might Uofafe
the idw, 0nd shrUid nat be punished.
II they saw proper to bring in this YER
dict tie court cOuN not preDcm lie
Nhc Judge might have found differ
ent verdict, hut he could not invade the
province of the jury and so he denied
''the motion to set aside their verdict"
RichDtond Djsp0fch, Octobcr II, 1885.
Some months ago, in endeavoring
TO STOW TIE JURIEs THEIR RIGHTS
and powers in this matter, and how alb
solutcly independent of judges they
were, | bad occasion to state fact
Which | derived directly from the late
venerable Randolph Harrison, Esq, of
Cumberland county, 2 man of vigorous
intellect, sound sense. and thoroughly
imbued with Democratic principles. At
the United States Circuit Court for
Richmond in May, 1900, he was one of
the grand jury. The Judge, Chase,
gave the alien and sedition law in charge
to them, and they presented Calender
under it. When the matter WAS under
advisemont in the jury room Mr.. Har-
risOn objected that the slien and sedi-
ton law was unconstitutional. br.
McC lurg, the foreman, replied that the
Judge had given it to them a, law and
had thereby decided it to he constitu-
tional Mr.. Harrison reioined that
juror had az much right to pass on the
constitutionality Of a lew the Judge.
On the trial (Wharton, State Trials,
pages 10, I'll, and 7l2) the ground !
now maintain was distinctly taken by
Writ. Nicholas, and Hay, Callender's
counsel. But they were Oyerruled by
the Court, and driven from the cause
ly the conduct of Judge Chase. Under
bis instructions to the marshal. David
Meade Randolph, the petty jury was
paclodt and Calender was sent to
prison; from which Mr. Jefferson at
once released him, as Tn. victim OF an
unconstitutional law. 1t is enough to
add, asa specimen of the sentiment and
spirit Of tie time, that Judge Chase WAS
impeachsd by John Randolph III 1904
for his conduct in this trial. and found
guilty on one Of the specifications in
volving the matter under discussion by
vote OF Is to Is in the Senate, Party
spirit saved him from deposition, to
which y two-thirds vote w0s necessary.
| shall he INDUCED in stating here, tor
want OF a better lace, that
nR. JEFFERSON
who va, probably the ablest, and GER
tainly the most philosOphic lawyer of
his day, was 40 partial to jury trials
that, as one of the committee appointed
in 1879 to revise the laws, he was only
perverted from having it made part OF !
the chancery, IS well as the common
Jaw system, by the adroitness Of Judge
Pendleton.
The prejudice of caste prevails among |
lawyers to = greater degree than IN any
other class of our society. And though |
they Gatter every panel they address,
1 believe they regard juries as profane.
Hence they will say, rs | have heard |
them say, if jurles are turned loose IN
courts there can never be any certainty |
what the law is. But it is just as hard
to find it ont from the DEGREES of the
Judges. There is scarcely q case on
Which lawyers cannot make plausible ar
euments on both sides, citing decisions
Of courtsto sustain them and juries can
dono more thaIth Onthe contrarylt
may. think, be safely said shat If they
nro properly selected land the judges
alone are to blame il they are not they
c,n after argument is heardt and the
Court has explained the case through
instructions, arrive at ss Just and en-
lightened conclusions ~ the Judge. In
deed, their ideas of right are apt to be
based on broader grounds and formed
with clearer perceptions than are the
ideas of men who cannot walk
outside of what John Randolph
called "the so cart OF precedent"
and whose vision is reiracted ani
distorted by the mists OF techni-
csEiy and casuistry which surround
them like an atmosphere.
The clearly contradictory, and, soma
times dishonest, DEGREES of both The
Federal and State courts on this very
matter o. the debt furnish cases IL
point and the country was SO well salts
fed that iuries would decree ia, jus
tee, which some judges deny, that the
complaint is universal against thu
State officers who, by violating the
State laws, took from the jurles the
opportunity and legal power OF battling
the partisan judgments OF Bond and
others, and settling the debt without
tie intervention of the late extra SEES
sion Of the Legislature. 1t Is to rem
der such service that we need at tls
nick OF time
SUCH JUMES
rs lately found the verdict in Hanover
county. / say in this nick of time,
because some of our best editors APP
pear to be giving way. My friends OF
he DiSDQtch and wing have each SAID
lately that the law was against us. The
wing has appealed to our patriotism
10 refrain from using the coupons, and
thus substitutes sentiment for right;
and the DiSpGtch maintains that 1.-THE
Constitution of the United States Is
iu.t what the United States judiciary
declares il to be -; thus making "this
supreme law of the land, " and what
should therefore be the Interchangeable
standard OF authority, as plastic as clay
in the hands OF the potter and as ira
Gle AS the vessels he manufactures.
If these editors are right, then the
Democratic party vas acting III the
teeth of law when, in the convention
OF July, 1885, it said: 1.-The question